Voices

Views from elsewhere

Syndicate contentRSS

Chris Brown’s smashing post-assault comeback

The media who are glossing over his past abuse send the message that assaulting women is little more than an inconvenience to your career.

Chris Brown onstage during the 2012 BET Awards in Los Angeles
Chris Brown onstage during the 2012 BET Awards in Los Angeles. Photograph: Getty Images

"Don't f—k with my old bitch, it's like a bad fur/ Every industry n—— done had her/ Shook the tree like a pumpkin just to smash her/ B*tch is breaking codes, but I'm the password."

It might not be classy to trash-talk your ex, but trash-talking your ex after one of your main claims to fame is that you violently beat her up is apparently the formula for music chart success. The "smash her" line is the coup de grace here – an onomatopoeic punch to both warn other guys that his ex has had (too much) sex, and a trigger back to the fact Brown once, well, smashed Rihanna’s face in.

Chris Brown’s fifth album Fortune hit the UK chart number one spot this Sunday, marking the full rehabilitation of Brown’s career after his assault of then-girlfriend Rihanna on the evening of the 2009 Grammys. In the excitement, Brown’s fans took to Twitter en masse as #TeamBreezy to celebrate Brown’s return: amongst their assertions that "Chris Brown can hit me any time" and "I don’t know why Rihanna complained" were the more worrying – for seeming to be more legitimate – arguments that Brown is "sorry" (a claim invalidated largely by his continued classic-abuser positioning of himself as a victim of "smears") or that Brown was very young in 2009, and grew up in a tough environment (that may be so but I think “he had a bad childhood” grows old quickly when a grown man’s strangling you until you start losing consciousness).

Rihanna’s evolving response to what happened in 2009 was evoked to further brush Brown’s abuse under the carpet, particularly the fact she collaborated with Brown on a single earlier this year. And as Brown reaches number one, Rihanna is actually used to distract from what Brown did. This goes beyond Chris Brown’s attempts, in his recent music, to slut-shame Rihanna for having a sex life – because when you can no longer control a woman with violence, you at least have recourse to the good old-fashioned tactic of branding her a ‘slut’. It extends to the opprobrium Rihanna receives for the work she’s produced since the 2009 Grammys: while her "Love The Way You Lie" video, exploring the emotions of a toxic relationship, was accused of ‘soft porn-ifying’ abuse, her video for 2011’s "Man Down" was criticised for ‘glorifying’ female violence because it shows a woman’s response to rape. It’s Rihanna, not Brown, who faces the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ of public scrutiny.

This focus on Rihanna (particularly the "if she can forgive him why can’t you?" line familiar to anyone who’s dealt with domestic violence) and foregrounding of her ambiguous response distracts from the focus on the unambiguous brutality of Brown’s actions in 2009. After all, can you think of a less subtle act than smashing a woman’s face against a car window? How Rihanna deals with what happened is her prerogative, but that it should eclipse the bare facts of what Brown did seems convenient for abuse-apologist #TeamBreezy.

The debate about whether Rihanna’s musical collaboration with Brown ‘rehabilitates’ his public persona may seem like a dilemma unique to Universe Celebrity, but it is based on a mundane truth: domestic violence is both complicated and simple. It’s about unique intimate dynamics and it’s also about crime, clear lines unacceptably crossed. How the media handle the public and the private in this is crucial to what messages society receives about domestic violence. A decade ago, football fans made excuses for Paul Gasgoine’s violence against his partner on the grounds that they supported him as a footballer, not what he did off-pitch. A similar line is being evoked by #TeamBreezy, while Brown breaks the ‘privacy’ by continually publicly justifying himself. And this is perhaps the most frustrating thing about Chris Brown’s public rehabilitation: it utilises the patriarchal ‘private sphere’ switch-and-bait to both minimise and legitimise violence against women.

When you’re rapping about your ex in the vein of “don’t fuck with my old bitch, it’s like a bad fur”, the already-flimsy Gazza-argument that the work for which you’re renowned is removed from your ‘private’ violence seems unconvincing; yet in the media spotlight it’s Rihanna whose every move is fair game for criticism. The sham act of policing sexual propriety that manifests in the media’s mock-concern for Rihanna’s ‘dignity’ when she expresses herself sexually is not only part of a reactionary positioning female sexuality as dangerous (making yourself seem "available" will get you beaten up) but also plays into the machismo that legitimises Brown’s violence (after all, it doesn’t matter what you do to a whore, does it?).

As Rihanna is chastised for expressing her sexuality, Brown’s violence – and his lyrics relating to violence – are positioned variously as the preserve of the ‘private sphere’ and ‘artistic licence’. It’s a double-standard of privacy in favour of male violence "behind closed doors" that’s so embarrassingly obvious it puts Henri-Levy’s bizarre 2011 defence of Strauss-Kahn as a "friend of women" to shame.

Because that’s another thing about domestic violence: it’s behind closed doors. The recent domestic violence awareness campaign by make-up artist Lauren Luke was so powerful because it bound an everyday, intimate act – Luke putting on her make-up, which her fans are used to watching – with the fact that every day women use make-up to cover their bruises. Women’s abuse is largely hidden; saying its irrelevant when a public figure commits it contributes to this silencing.

Chris Brown’s comeback, and the media who are glossing over his past abuse, send the message that assaulting women is little more than an inconvenience to your career – you can turn it into bravado, along the lines of “bitch be breaking codes but I’m the password”, or, à la Strauss-Kahn, you can cite the "private sphere" defence: win win. Either way, it’s the right of women to live lives in which they can express themselves, safe from violence, that is lost.

Follow Heather McRobie on Twitter as @heathermcrobie

17 comments

Star's picture

This article and the comments are quite disturbing. The underline part of this article is racism at it's best. If Chris Brown was 100% white, this article would not exist. The author would never take the time to criticize nor encourage the public to excommunicate Chris from pop culture. Clearly this author is on a mission to influence Chris' down fall. She wants his career to slowly come to a halt. She's hoping he's dropped from his label and completely shunned by the public. In her mind, Chris is undeserving of his success. Main stream media wants Chris to continuously discuss the incident. As long as you view him as an abuser, you forget about his attempt at redemption. Maybe his lyrics about Rihanna are inappropriate and insensitive but, they're just foolish words. I find it strange that Rihanna chose to make a music video reenacting the horrific incident. Did her music video have to feature a Chris Brown look-a-like? If you want to get past the incident, then why put so much energy into re-living it? Chris has moved on, he's in a 2 year relationship with his girlfriend KT. I believe Chris is going through growing pains. He'll continue to make mistakes and learn from them. Just like the rest of us, we're still living and learning as time goes by.

Rahuk sharma's picture

hope you will write more ,thanks a lot for your information. Golden Traingle Tour, Same Day Taj Mahal Tour,Delhi Agra Jaipur Tour

montee's picture

im tryna understand why people mostly "white people" but some black always seems to have to talk about chris brown, thats what i wannna know??? it hurts yall so bad that even though he did such a horrible thing, he's still successful and has people (his fans, other celebs) in his corner still. yes what he did was wrong and he paid the ultimate price 4 it ( you may not like how he paid that price, it is what it is). than you wanna go and talk about his fans. fyi, most of his fan dont condone what he did or would joke about something like that because as his fan you should know that that is something he takes seriously not as a joke but sadly to say there are some fans thats either to young to understand or to immature to understand the seriousness of it. and if we want to forgive and still support him and keep it moving than thats what we're gonna do because his music has NOTHING to do with his personal life. and if the victim wants to forgive him so that she can move on, than good for her. there's nothing wrong with forgiving a person, GOD says to forgive not bully or whayever yall do to him. he young and he's gonna make mistakes.

Bizel's picture

Im tired of black people saying everyone is punishing chris cause he's black and you don't drag other "white" celebs in the mud, who are involved in dmv themselves. The issue is th complete difference between chris and these other celebs you compare him too.

Example charlie sheen. Yes thier is some truth that charlie and chris have been involved with dmv and yes one factor that some people are harder on Chris than Charlie could be skin color. But you are a fool to think thats the only reason. What about that fact that charlie is old and chris is young. Does charlie sheen have tween girls on twitter wanting him to beat them up or slam them up against the wall with a knife at their neck.
Another factor do people see charlie's victim battered face picture.

montee's picture

oh and team breezy dont use his mothers abuse to justify what he did, we just know that played a part in it because clearly he's still angry about it so yes he's gonna be angry. is it ok for him to lash out like he did at gma?? no but it is ok for him to defend himself when ignorant people (celebs or not celebs) attack and threatens him but nobody seems to care about that or sees that, they just see what he does and criticize HIM instead of criticizing him and whoever else is involved. smh if people are gonna talk about dmv and use his name, make sure you use the names of other celebs thats done it, cuz he's not the first and wont be the last, just because you know his nane is gonna get the most views and reactions

Titi's picture

Why's society okay with fugitive_from_justice_director Roman Polanski who raped a 13yr old girl & continually acts like Chris Brown's unique for domestic violence?? Anyone remember Sean Penn bt Madonna or Mickey Rourke bt Carre' Otis?
CB has lost all the endorsements he has - he makes his cash on talent as the consumers who choose to buy his goods see it - i guess his name does a lot for internet traffic, tv ratings & paper circulation - i wish domestic abusers like Manny Ramirez get as much scrutiny as CB.Meanwhile it's turned into a CB witch hunt while domestic abuse cases in the USA keeps rising - can't blame him for that!!!

hugh markey's picture

Some guys talk tough. Some guys could do with a hitch in Afghanistan protecting the women-folk.

Gimme Five

Heather K McRobie's picture

GMichael, thanks for your message. I actually did mention that Chris Brown had had a difficult childhood; I also mentioned how this is being cited by some #TeamBreezy fans as a carte blanche for Brown's actions whilst simultaneously minimising (or sometimes glorifying) his violence. I don't really follow #TeamBreezy logic there - he had an abusive childhood which justifies an otherwise unjustifiable act, but that act wasn't that bad anyway?
The 'abusive childhood' line is curious when it comes to gender issues. In pop culture, I think having an abusive or difficult childhood is often used as a way to smear women in a subtle sting of faux 'concern' for them (like the phrase "damaged goods" both as a general slut-shaming term and implying psychological 'damage'; the tired comic trope of "girl with daddy issues" in popular culture) so I find it strange when the same bad-childhood line used as a put-down to women ("damaged goods"; "daddy issues") is then used to justify (I get 'explain', I don't get justify) male violence.
Yes to get to the root of the problem of a kind of construction of contemporary masculinity that's bound to violence you do need to talk about the social causes of it, you need to understand intergenerational cycles of violence, and there are instances where male violence is in a sad (but not justified) way an expression of power*less*ness, when your sheer physical force is the only thing you have to resort to. But it's about how different power dynamics play out in different situations -- trapped in a car with a violent man, 'bad childhood' isn't a trump card, and the woman's success (or sluttiness, or whatever else 'provokes' it) out-in-the-world is not some magic passport out of the power-dynamics in that situation which so clearly lie with the physical strength of the man.
You seem to imply I don't think Brown can ever reform or be forgiven -- I don't agree; people do make mistakes and can reform. But you also say Brown worked hard for four years to prove he has changed (and yeah, 'worked to prove' he's changed is very different from actually changing - a lot of abusers go to great lengths to 'convince' that they have changed and deserve another chance) and is now a 'different man'. Do those lyrics talking about 'smashing' his ex sound like a changed man to you? My point is that his comeback has come with little real contrition -- a hangdog-face half-apology while still justifying himself and showing little respect for a woman he violently assaulted. And his fans making excuses for his violence aren't doing him any favours.

VPI77's picture

A well thought out and thorough answer. Well put.

TheGilb.'s picture

I'm sorry 'GMICHAEL' but your response is pathetic, fan-base BS. Heather hasn't GLOSSED OVER his past in this article at all; she addresses it head on.

You talk about him 'being left for dead', but this is just Hollywood talk - he was barely out of the limelight in the interim period, and, face it, you know nothing other than what has been reported in the gutter press.

Anyone who puts "SMH" and "#teambreezy" in comments on an article like this should be ignored anyway... this is serious, not some platform for your weak-kneed celeb-simpering. You should be ashamed of yourself.

tedious-ads's picture

What is the answer? Should Brown be dropped by his record label, shunted off into obscurity? Perhaps, but then this type of behavior is not unheard of in this world. James Brown, who invented funk music, beat up his wife. Ike Turner, maker of the first ever rock and roll song, Rocket 88, was accused by Tina Turner of abuse.

Not to mention Robert Johnson, king of the Delta blues singers: 'me and the devil were walking side by side / and I'm gonna beat my woman, til I get satisfied'.

We can say then that black men, who are raised in difficult circumstances, have the potential to become abusers? That some happen to also be in the public eye, because they are also adding to popular culture, but they shouldn't be?

But then what about the white rock musicians who have abused groupies? Led Zeppelin come across as appalling in the book Hammer of the Gods, especially John Bonham's habit of grabbing young girls and forcing himself on them. But that was seen as just fun, at the time. The Rolling Stones supposed abuse of Marianne Faithful might not be true, but it is a much mythologized moment, which some rock fans enjoy imagining. Boy George chaining a male prostitute up - how does that compare with Brown's behavior?

My only conclusion is that attempting to judge popular music which prides itself on its outlaw status according to white bourgeois values, is destined to fail.

Trajan's picture

"My only conclusion is that attempting to judge popular music which prides itself on its outlaw status according to white bourgeois values, is destined to fail. "

How sixth form is this? The artists you list were mostly active in the mid-twentieth century when spousal abuse was poorly understood at the best of times. Their behaviour can be taken as representative of many, many men in the 1960's and 1970's. Throw substance abuse and celebrity narcissism into the equation and it's not too much of a mystery why a lot of great popular music from this time was produced by very bad men. And it wasn't restricted to popular music. Miles Davis was archetypal as a famous musician with a horrendous attitude to women.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying music from people we don't approve of. EMI would have a tough time selling Wagner and Strauss records otherwise. What's disturbing about fans of Chris Brown is that their adulation for him is often related less to his music than a grotesque romantic infatuation and the feeling that he can be "changed" or worse that he is "misunderstood" and that "there are two sides to every story" (aka both the abuser and the victim are equally culpible). No distinction is made between the man and his "music" in this case.

Heather K McRobie's picture

Hi Tedious-Ads, thanks for your message - but for all the instances you list I don't follow your conclusion "attempting to judge popular music which prides itself on its outlaw status according to white bourgeois values, is destined to fail" -- concern for violence against women is white and bourgeois? I think there are a lot of non-white non-bourgeois activists and community groups willing to argue against that one.

Gmichael's picture

I like how you GLOSSED OVER the fact that he grew up in a violent home watching his mama getting beat down by a man(he admitted this long before he beat up rihanna). I also like how the media GLOSSED OVER all the hard work he put in trying to prove he's a changed man in the two years before he released F.A.M.E...and 4 yrs later u expect him to thank the peole who left him for dead for his success? While i do think biting an choking were extreme(i can't help but factor in his background), he didn't go from bruce banner to the hulk for no reason..he has been with different women ever since then. And if recidivism is a given, i don't think all those anger management counsellors should have jobs.SMH.#teambreezy

TKTK's picture

Growing up in an abusive household is a reason (likely one of many) someone might be abusive themselves. It is not an excuse. People (who aren't you) don't say, 'It's okay everyone. He watched his mom getting beaten up as a child. Smash the bitch. Proceed.' They say, 'Oh, he thinks it's okay to hit women because he saw women being hit when he was young and impressionable. How awful would it be if everyone reinforced this opinion by continuing to hire him and throw money at him when it is clear he's abusive?'

Heather K McRobie's picture

Hi TKTK, I agree and nicely put!

Latest tweets